It really depends what you mean by "self-driving car". I think it's realistic to expect Google's cars to be better than humans on paved roads by the end of the decade.
Did you miss the quote from the guy who's the project director on Google's car? He said they've adjusted their timeline expectations from the end of the decade to 30 years out.
but they were profitable then precisely because people at that time did not have cheap and easy access to automobiles
Automobiles were plenty cheap and easy in 1950. In fact, compared to income, it was cheaper to own a car then than it is today.
How would public transportation be profitable now, in competition with ubiquitous automobiles, when many (most?) people apparently prefer to drive rather than to take public transportation?
Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?
Well, we know it works. But from where do you get "profitable"?
See the links in my post a few levels up. Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off. This is one of those wacky-sounding conspiracy theories that turns out to be absolutely true. They were even convicted in court over this, but a friendly (bribed) judge fined them $1.
Seriously, friend, if you don't know about this chapter in US history, it's really worth a look. Just scroll to my post a few layers up. There are three links at the bottom that lay out the entire story.
The citizen killer in Dallas was a human, not a robot. He was discharged panty raider, who was thrown out of the military for stealing a woman's underpants.
He was also a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, a Second Amendment activist and a gun enthusiast.
The cars will be DUMB, the road will be smart. Basically your car wont even function on public roads after pulling out of your garage until it registers itself to the road control computer.
See, that's my biggest fear about "self-driving cars". That instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable, they're going to put it into making "smart roads".
Because I like you guys, I'm gonna do you a solid and save you all kinds of tsuris later on. There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes. Yes, we will have something like super cruise control and driver assist, but no, you will never be able to call for your robot Uber to pick you up and drive you to your part-time job. It's just not going to happen. And finally, the people who know most about "driverless" cars are starting to come clean:
The most realistic industry projection about the arrival of autonomous driving comes from the company that’s done the most to make it possible. Google, while never explicitly saying so, has long intimated that self-driving cars would be available by the end of the decade.
In February, though, a Google car caused its first accident; a bus collision with no injuries. A few weeks later, Google made a significant, if little-noted, schedule adjustment. Chris Urmson, the project director, said in a presentation that the fully featured, truly go-anywhere self-driving car that Google has promised might not be available for 30 years, though other much less capable models might arrive sooner.
Historians of technology know that “in 30 years” often ends up being “never.” Even if that’s not the case here, if you’re expecting a self-driving car, you should also expect a wait. And so you might want to do something to pass the time. Maybe go for a nice drive?
Yes, you read that right. The project director for "self-driving cars" at Google just added 25 more years to his projection on when you're going to see them. And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.
Now I don't have a particular interest one way or the other regarding self-driving cars, except this: I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable, the way it was early to middle last century before Standard Oil and GM conspired to destroy public transportation in the United States (and yes, they were even convicted of doing so in court). So go ahead, Google and Elon and Tim Cook and all the visionaries. Make your self-driving golf carts all you want. Just don't ask for a dollar of taxpayer money, especially not until you start paying your taxes.
Careful praising steam, slashdot harbors a decent sized group of people who hate seam with a passion. I think its the same group that hates Elon and the same group that hates space. Personally I think their mother didn't love them enough.
If I love Steam and space, but hate Elon, does that mean my mother loved me too much?
It's not even that hard. You watch a video on YouTube and you're good to go. I'm a complete moron (as lgw will gladly attest, I'm sure) and I've built my last three gaming machines. One of them, I just went to the MicroCenter and said, "Gimme one of those, and one of those and two of those..." and went home and slapped it all together. It was much easier to complete than the Revelle model of a 1968 Nova that I built when I was a kid.
The hardest part is taking a couple of minutes to make sure you've got the processor lined up on the motherboard, but even that's easy because you can't put it in wrong. I did get some of the arctic silver stuff on my pants, but they were old pants.
Oh, one other thing: I did have some trouble because the USB wire going from the motherboard was too short to make it all the way to the secondary USB ports on the front of the giant case I was using. Didn't matter because there were already a bunch of USB ports I was able to connect to, and I try to avoid using front-facing USB ports because they get broken off by my big clumsy dog.
If you have half a brain and enough hand-eye coordination to play video games in the first place, you can build your own kick-ass gaming PC with little trouble. And you won't feel stupid every time you drop another $69 on a AAA video game. You just wait until Steam drops the price to $7.95 during some sale or other. And if you set up a wishlist in Steam, they'll even contact you as soon as your game goes on sale.
New Hostess didn't hire everyone that worked at old Hostess, but that's neither an at-will employment issue nor a right to work issue.
You're right on both counts.
It's also not a union issue. Automation doesn't care how much the worker it replaces is making. It'll replace a $5/hr worker as surely as it will replace a $15/hr worker. It's a late-stage capitalism issue.
Since Hostess waived its right to employ At-Will, and nearly all Hostess employees waived their right to work, neither were in play when the original Hostess collapsed.
But they were in play when the 22,000 were laid off.
Because those states are right to work, they may have been able to just fire all the union employees and start over, but they obviously didn't feel that was the way they wanted to go.
So, that sounds like you understand that the original comment about these layoffs being "because of a union strike" is just completely false, right?
Anyway, the Kansas factory wasn't a union shop, and the other two (Indiana, Georgia) had given back salary and benefit concessions.
Automation has nothing to do with the cost of employment. If companies use automation to replace $15/hr workers, they'll use it to replace $7/hr workers, and $5/hr workers, and eventually $3/hr workers.
I can't wait to see what's going to happen to the neoliberal tech workers' opinions once their jobs start going away, which (don't tell nobody) by the way, they already have.
The government can pay the unemployed to read about economic fallacies
You realize that your citation has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, right? Waving your hands and shouting "fallacy!" does not actually mean you automatically win every argument, despite what you may have learned on reddit.
I have wound up just going to local bakeries for their specials.
Oh brother, there's a bakery right down the street from me that sells the most amazing donuts, but they're pretty much sold out by about 9:30am (when they switch over to bread and sandwiches and stuff). One of their donuts is about the same price as a Twinkie, tastes like a kiss from a goddess, and it won't cause you to grow a third nipple, Fallout 4 -style. And, I can actually look at the person who's baking the donuts and have a high degree of confidence that she's getting a reasonable portion of the money I just spent on a donut and coffee. And, there's no plastic wrapping that has to be thrown away when it's over, I just have to lick my fingers and that takes care of the packaging in an environmentally friendly and tasty way.
2) This is really pretty cool. There is a lot more competition in the packaged food space than when the twinkie first graced the scene. Its also true the relative cost of the goods twinkes were originally created as a substitute for have pretty well fallen to levels where twinkie does not make a lot of sense as a replacement good in economic terms. So what we have here is a very niche product, one that could not be offered economically using last centuries technology. Thanks to labor savings and efficiency though the die hard twinkie lovers can get them, and the rest of use vary occasional twinkie consumers can know there will be on on the shelf of our local grocery! The production, supply, and distribution chain is efficient enough to give us a crazy amount of choices!
I would still choose to have those people employed in Indiana, Kansas and Georgia (the states where the layoffs occurred) instead of a crazy amount of choices when it comes to poisonous snack cakes made from petroleum products, industrial waste and salt.
Not all professional "aircraft pilots" are professional "airline pilots". That's the distinction. The statistic is for aircraft pilots, not airline pilots.
A crop duster, surveyor, the guy who flies the helicopter for your friendly traffic reporter, charter pilots, etc. I'm guessing that the number of "airline pilots" who die on the job is smaller (per 100,000) than the guys who bring the mail to an Aleutian Island via seaplane.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you miss the quote from the guy who's the project director on Google's car? He said they've adjusted their timeline expectations from the end of the decade to 30 years out.
Most people live in cities.
It doesn't need to take longer. In fact, it can be faster.
You mean a "brick and mortar" store? The kind that are disappearing?
Automobiles were plenty cheap and easy in 1950. In fact, compared to income, it was cheaper to own a car then than it is today.
Are you certain that people don't "apparently prefer to drive" because there are not good alternatives? Look at the popularity of Uber, for example. If you make public transportation attractive enough (as it was prior to 1950) how do you know people wouldn't prefer it?
See the links in my post a few levels up. Public transportation and light rail were very profitable until GM and Standard Oil (and other oil companies) conspired to kill them off. This is one of those wacky-sounding conspiracy theories that turns out to be absolutely true. They were even convicted in court over this, but a friendly (bribed) judge fined them $1.
Seriously, friend, if you don't know about this chapter in US history, it's really worth a look. Just scroll to my post a few layers up. There are three links at the bottom that lay out the entire story.
Don't blame me, I was posting while driving my Tesla.
He was also a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, a Second Amendment activist and a gun enthusiast.
I use my first drink to wash down my car key. This way I'm guaranteed not to try to drive drunk.
It causes little discomfort later, but it's better than becoming a statistic.
See, that's my biggest fear about "self-driving cars". That instead of putting money in public transportation that we know works and is profitable, they're going to put it into making "smart roads".
Because I like you guys, I'm gonna do you a solid and save you all kinds of tsuris later on. There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes. Yes, we will have something like super cruise control and driver assist, but no, you will never be able to call for your robot Uber to pick you up and drive you to your part-time job. It's just not going to happen. And finally, the people who know most about "driverless" cars are starting to come clean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...
Yes, you read that right. The project director for "self-driving cars" at Google just added 25 more years to his projection on when you're going to see them. And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.
Now I don't have a particular interest one way or the other regarding self-driving cars, except this: I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable, the way it was early to middle last century before Standard Oil and GM conspired to destroy public transportation in the United States (and yes, they were even convicted of doing so in court). So go ahead, Google and Elon and Tim Cook and all the visionaries. Make your self-driving golf carts all you want. Just don't ask for a dollar of taxpayer money, especially not until you start paying your taxes.
http://www.whale.to/b/street_c...
http://www.baycrossings.com/Ar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If I love Steam and space, but hate Elon, does that mean my mother loved me too much?
It's not even that hard. You watch a video on YouTube and you're good to go. I'm a complete moron (as lgw will gladly attest, I'm sure) and I've built my last three gaming machines. One of them, I just went to the MicroCenter and said, "Gimme one of those, and one of those and two of those..." and went home and slapped it all together. It was much easier to complete than the Revelle model of a 1968 Nova that I built when I was a kid.
The hardest part is taking a couple of minutes to make sure you've got the processor lined up on the motherboard, but even that's easy because you can't put it in wrong. I did get some of the arctic silver stuff on my pants, but they were old pants.
Oh, one other thing: I did have some trouble because the USB wire going from the motherboard was too short to make it all the way to the secondary USB ports on the front of the giant case I was using. Didn't matter because there were already a bunch of USB ports I was able to connect to, and I try to avoid using front-facing USB ports because they get broken off by my big clumsy dog.
If you have half a brain and enough hand-eye coordination to play video games in the first place, you can build your own kick-ass gaming PC with little trouble. And you won't feel stupid every time you drop another $69 on a AAA video game. You just wait until Steam drops the price to $7.95 during some sale or other. And if you set up a wishlist in Steam, they'll even contact you as soon as your game goes on sale.
And will continue to get cheaper.
Automation will eventually replace most workers. Then we're going to find out exactly how late-stage capitalism becomes terminal capitalism.
You're right on both counts.
It's also not a union issue. Automation doesn't care how much the worker it replaces is making. It'll replace a $5/hr worker as surely as it will replace a $15/hr worker. It's a late-stage capitalism issue.
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the XY chromosome.
https://youtu.be/6w5t6hktyqI
I know, right? Back in my day, 3 year olds looked 18.
When I was four, my dad used to send me to the store for a case of Schlitz and a carton of Chesterfields. And give me the keys to the car.
But they were in play when the 22,000 were laid off.
So, that sounds like you understand that the original comment about these layoffs being "because of a union strike" is just completely false, right?
Anyway, the Kansas factory wasn't a union shop, and the other two (Indiana, Georgia) had given back salary and benefit concessions.
Automation has nothing to do with the cost of employment. If companies use automation to replace $15/hr workers, they'll use it to replace $7/hr workers, and $5/hr workers, and eventually $3/hr workers.
I can't wait to see what's going to happen to the neoliberal tech workers' opinions once their jobs start going away, which (don't tell nobody) by the way, they already have.
No. Those three states where the layoffs took place are all "right-to-work" states. Indiana, Kansas and Georgia.
a) she thought mathematical symbols were "terrorist code" and b) she thought an Italian mathematician was a muslim terrorist.
Case closed. Trump supporter.
You realize that your citation has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, right? Waving your hands and shouting "fallacy!" does not actually mean you automatically win every argument, despite what you may have learned on reddit.
Oh brother, there's a bakery right down the street from me that sells the most amazing donuts, but they're pretty much sold out by about 9:30am (when they switch over to bread and sandwiches and stuff). One of their donuts is about the same price as a Twinkie, tastes like a kiss from a goddess, and it won't cause you to grow a third nipple, Fallout 4 -style. And, I can actually look at the person who's baking the donuts and have a high degree of confidence that she's getting a reasonable portion of the money I just spent on a donut and coffee. And, there's no plastic wrapping that has to be thrown away when it's over, I just have to lick my fingers and that takes care of the packaging in an environmentally friendly and tasty way.
I would still choose to have those people employed in Indiana, Kansas and Georgia (the states where the layoffs occurred) instead of a crazy amount of choices when it comes to poisonous snack cakes made from petroleum products, industrial waste and salt.
Hostess Brands ceased being "owned pretty much entirely by democrats" in 1925, you stupid sonofabitch.
Not all professional "aircraft pilots" are professional "airline pilots". That's the distinction. The statistic is for aircraft pilots, not airline pilots.
A crop duster, surveyor, the guy who flies the helicopter for your friendly traffic reporter, charter pilots, etc. I'm guessing that the number of "airline pilots" who die on the job is smaller (per 100,000) than the guys who bring the mail to an Aleutian Island via seaplane.
Oh, I got you. Sorry.